Firstly, I really like the SPMF package - very easy to use, and oh so many algorithms to choose from! I can't begin to fathom the years of work that has gone into this
On to my question:
is there an option to make the order of antecedent events important when mining sequential rules? Or if not an option, a hacky alternative?
i.e., instead of:
{A, B, C} ==> Y I would be looking for separate rules:
A B C ==> Y A C B ==> Y B A C ==> Y B C A ==> Y C A B ==> Y C B A ==> Y From reading your online material, I know you favour - in terms of performance - unordered sequences. But in any case, I would still like to investigate my sequential rules with order taken into account.
I do realise that the number of rules will explode, however if I limit myself to just 2 or 3 'events' within the antecedent sequence, I don't think it should explode by more than a factor of 6 (if I remember my combinatorics equation correctly)
Many thanks again for your sterling work!